It’s easy to focus on technology when talking about cybersecurity. However, the best prevention measures rely on the education of those who use technology. Organizations training their employees is the first step. But the industry needs to expand the concept of a culture of cybersecurity and take it from where it currently stands as an organizational responsibility to a global perspective.

When every person who uses technology — for work, personal use and school — views cybersecurity as their responsibility, it becomes much harder for cyber criminals to successfully launch attacks. Achieving this goal starts with taking precautions to reduce personal risk through securing devices and data. However, each of us also needs to recognize and report all potential cyber threats we run across.

A global culture of cybersecurity is only possible when corporate organizations, nonprofits and universities all work to spread the message and include outreach in their mission. Here are four ways to take cybersecurity into the community to help create a global culture of cybersecurity:

1. Launch a mentorship initiative

A key element of a global culture of cybersecurity is making sure the industry has a pipeline of diverse and skilled professionals. Because cybersecurity offers non-traditional career pathways, including badging and certifications, job seekers often struggle to determine the best route. When cybersecurity professionals provide support to those who are interested in joining our ranks, we can remove barriers to new cybersecurity professionals entering the field.

For example, the nonprofit Women in Cybersecurity offers a formal nine-month mentorship program that helps members strengthen their skills in areas such as influence, negotiation, leadership, work/life harmony and communication. In 2021, the program matched 1,115 mentees from entry-level to senior level with experienced mentors to help them navigate their journey.

Organizations launching mentorship programs should start by determining their target audiences, such as underserved communities, university students or entry-level professionals. Next, they should determine the framework for the program, including creating a curriculum for mentors, determining how to recruit mentors and matching mentors with mentees. After launching the initiative, it’s important to monitor the program and make changes based on feedback provided by participants.

2. Focus on the next generation

Reaching out to students, especially those in high school and middle school, is a great way to help fill the professional pipeline by targeting young people who are making future career decisions. At the same time, members of this demographic are heavy users of technology and can help spread the education they receive to their families and peers. Iowa State University’s Center for Cybersecurity Innovation & Outreach (CyIO) offers several programs for high schoolers. Since 2007, CyIO has sponsored Innovate-IT clubs, which focus on either game design or cyber defense, at Iowa high schools. The Iowa Cyber Hub also hosts the Youth Cyber Summit every October, which provides activities such as a Capture the Flag challenge, interactive security demos, discussions about career pathways and panel discussions regarding cybersecurity careers.

Organizations looking to nurture the next generation should start by determining their key message and goals, such as educating or encouraging kids to become cybersecurity professionals. Next, decide how to get the message across to the right audience, such as clubs or events. Then, partner with schools or nonprofits that focus on kids to create the programming and get the word out.

3. Look for ways to add humor and fun

Instead of presenting lectures and offering dry information, look for fun ways to get your message out to the community. Balancing humor with information encourages people to pay attention and, most importantly, remember your message. Start with the core message you want to communicate, and then identify your specific target audience. Next, brainstorm ways that will appeal to your audience so you can get your message across while captivating their attention. Be sure to test out your idea with several people in your target audience before going live to make sure you are hitting the mark.

Videos are a great method of reaching people in a lighthearted way. In honor of Cybersecurity Month, Iowa State University created a catchy video called Cyber House Rock!, which encourages people to “encrypt your data, make passwords strong, to keep away all the malware, spam and email scams.” BuzzFeed’s Internet Privacy Prank uses the “show, not tell” approach to help people see how easy it is for cyber criminals to find their information.

Events are also a great way to add humor and fun. Princeton’s cybersecurity team got decked out for its “War Games” showing with an 80s dress-up night. After the show was over, attendees talked about what had changed in terms of information security since the movie was released in 1983. At other events, the team adds fun by bringing a Wheel of Fortune so people can spin it to win prizes while learning about cybersecurity.

4. Create an ambassador program to help friends and families

While mentorships help future and current professionals, Iowa State helps fill a big educational void. The Cybersecurity Ambassador Program, offered through the Iowa Cyber Hub, empowers Iowans by reaching out to businesses, communities, schools, friends and families. The Ambassadors provide the knowledge and tools to help others safely navigate the internet, such as avoiding scams, bullying and privacy breaches.

Focusing on helping residents and students as well as businesses, organizations can use these types of programs to provide education that is often overlooked. Launching an ambassador program is similar to the process of creating a mentorship program, but organizations need to focus on how to reach people who are most in need, such as retired adults and teenagers. Ambassador programs can also offer events to the community on specific topics, like keeping your data private and what to do if your computer is attacked by ransomware.

While it’s easy for organizations to focus on reducing their own vulnerabilities, the digital world is safer when everyone is educated and engaged about cybersecurity. By actively working to achieve this culture, organizations, nonprofits and universities can make big strides to make the internet and technology safer for all.

The post 4 ways to bring cybersecurity into your community appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Cybersecurity requires creativity and thinking outside the box. It’s why more organizations are looking at people with soft skills and coming from outside the tech industry to address the cyber skills gap. As the threat landscape becomes more complex and nation-state actors launch innovative cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, there is a need for cybersecurity professionals who can anticipate these attacks and develop creative preventive solutions.

Of course, a lot of cybersecurity work is mundane and repetitive — monitoring logs, sniffing out false positive alerts, etc. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been a boon in filling the talent gaps when it comes to these types of tasks. But AI has also proven useful for many of the same things that creative thought brings to the threat table, such as addressing more sophisticated threat actors, the rapid increase of data and the hybrid infrastructure.

However, many companies are seeing the value of AI, especially generative AI (gen AI), in handling a greater share of creative work — not just in cybersecurity but also in areas like marketing and public relations, writing and research. But are these organizations using AI in a way that could threaten the importance of human creativity in threat detection?

Why creativity is important to cybersecurity

The very simple reason why cybersecurity requires innovative people is that threat actors are already coming up with novel approaches to how to get into your system. Are they using gen AI to launch their attacks? You bet they are; phishing emails have never been more grammatically constructed or realistic. But before AI was available, threat actors were designing social engineering attacks that attracted clicks. Now, they have advanced beyond “how can we lure in victims” to “how can we get more out of a single attack after we lure in the victims.”

Creativity isn’t just coming up with new ideas. It is also the ability to see things through a big-picture lens and discern historical data or where to find information you might not know you need to look for. For example, creative thought is required for the following security tasks:

• Threat hunting or predicting a threat actor’s move or finding their tracks in a system
• Finding buried evidence in a forensic search
• Understanding historical data in anomaly detection
• Ability to tell a real email or document versus a well-designed phishing attack
• Verifying new zero day attacks and other malware variants found in otherwise unknown vulnerabilities

AI can augment human creativity, but gen AI gets a lot of things wrong. Users have found themselves in situations where AI claimed plagiarism on original work or AI hallucinations offered false information that nullified the research of human analysts. AI algorithms are also susceptible to bias that could lead to false positives.

AI’s role in creative cybersecurity and beyond

While many creative people, cybersecurity professionals and beyond, see gen AI as a mixed blessing, many embrace the technology because it is a huge timesaver.

“Gen AI can help prototype much faster because the large language models can take over the refactoring and documentation of code,” wrote Aili McConnon in an IBM blog post. Also, the article pointed out, AI tools can help users create prototypes or visualize their ideas in minutes versus hours or days.

Creativity married to AI can help identify future leaders. According to research from IBM, two-thirds of company leaders found that AI is driving their growth, with four specific use cases — IT operations, user experience, virtual assistants and cybersecurity — most commonly favored by leaders.

“A Learner will typically copy predefined scenarios using out-of-the-box technologies,” Dr. Stephan Bloehdorn, Executive Partner and Practice Leader, AI, Analytics and Automation-IBM Consulting DACH, was quoted in the study. “But a Leader develops custom innovations.”

Over-reliance on AI?

As gen AI becomes more ubiquitous in the workplace and as more creative folks and leaders rely on it as a way to put their ideas in motion, are we also relying on the technology to the point that it could lead to a degradation of other important necessary skills, like the ability to analyze data and create viable solutions?

It is unclear if organizations are over-relying on gen AI, according to Stephen Kowski, Field CTO at SlashNext Email Security+, but it is becoming more of a designed feature due to unintended consequences related to resource allocation in organizations.

“While AI excels at processing massive volumes of threat data, real-world attacks constantly evolve beyond historical patterns, requiring human expertise to identify and respond to zero-day threats,” said Kowski in an email interview. “The key is achieving the right balance where AI handles high-volume routine detection while skilled analysts investigate novel attack patterns and determine strategic responses.”

Yet, Kris Bondi, CEO and Co-Founder of Mimoto, isn’t worried about AI leading to a degradation of skills — at least not for the foreseeable future.

“One of the biggest challenges for cybersecurity professionals is having too many alerts and too many false positives. AI is only able to automate a small percentage of responses. It’s more likely that AI will eventually automate additional requirements for someone deemed to be suspicious or the elevation of alert so that a human can analyze the situation,” Bondi said via email.

However, organizations should watch out for AI’s role in defining threat-hunting parameters. “If AI is the sole driver defining threat hunting parameters without spot-checks or audits, the threat intelligence approach could eventually be focused in the wrong area. The answer is more reliance on critical thinking and analytical skills,” said Bondi.

Embracing creativity in an AI-driven world

AI overall, and gen AI in particular, are going to be part of the business world going forward. It is going to play a vital role in how organizations and analysts approach cybersecurity defenses and mitigations. But the soft skills that creative thought depends on will still play an important and necessary role in cybersecurity.

“Rather than diminishing soft skills, AI integration has the opportunity to elevate the importance of communication, collaboration and strategic thinking, as security teams must effectively convey complex findings to stakeholders,” said Kowski. “The human elements of cybersecurity — leadership, adaptability and cross-functional partnership — become even more critical as AI handles the technical heavy lifting.”

The post Will AI threaten the role of human creativity in cyber threat detection? appeared first on Security Intelligence.

In cybersecurity, too often, the emphasis is placed on advanced technology meant to shield digital infrastructure from external threats. Yet, an equally crucial — and underestimated — factor lies at the heart of all digital interactions: the human mind. Behind every breach is a calculated manipulation, and behind every defense, a strategic response. The psychology of cyber crime, the resilience of security professionals and the behaviors of everyday users combine to form the human element of cybersecurity. Arguably, it’s the most unpredictable and influential variable in our digital defenses.

To truly understand cybersecurity is to understand the human mind — both as a weapon and as a shield.

Peering into the mind of a cyber criminal

At the core of every cyberattack is a human, driven not just by code but by complex motivations and psychological impulses. Cyber criminals aren’t merely technologists. They are people with intentions, convictions, emotions and specific psychological profiles that drive their actions. Financial gain remains a primary incentive to launch attacks like ransomware. But some are also driven by ideological motives, or they relish the chance to outsmart advanced defenses so they can later brag about it in dark web forums.

Many cyber criminals share distinct personality traits: an inclination for risk-taking, problem-solving prowess and an indifference to ethical boundaries. Furthermore, the physical and digital distance inherent in online crime can create a psychological disconnect, minimizing the moral weight of their actions. This environment enables cyber criminals to justify their behavior in ways they might not if they had to face their victims in person. Equipped with these psychological “advantages,” cyber criminals excel in social engineering tactics. They manipulate people instead of systems to gain unauthorized access.

Exploiting the human factor with social engineering

One of the most powerful weapons in a cyber criminal’s arsenal isn’t high-tech malware but the vulnerability of the human mind. Social engineering attacks, like phishing, vishing (voice phishing) and smishing (SMS phishing), exploit non-technological human factors like trust, fear, urgency and curiosity. And these tactics are alarmingly effective. A recent report from Verizon found that the human element factored into 68% of data breaches, underscoring the vulnerability of human interactions.

Phishing attacks, for instance, are designed to create a sense of urgency, fear or curiosity. Attackers manipulate users into clicking malicious links or revealing sensitive information. The success of these attacks depends on creating a false sense of trust and authority, preying on our innate tendencies. Understanding these methods is not only crucial for developing technical countermeasures but also for educating users to resist psychological manipulation.

The mental fortitude of cyber professionals

Defending against cyber threats requires more than solid technical skills; it demands resilience, ethical conviction and a keen understanding of human behavior. Cyber professionals operate in a high-stakes environment and face unrelenting pressure. Mental resilience enables them to rapidly respond to breaches, restore security and learn from the incident.

Creativity and adaptability are also indispensable in cybersecurity. As cyber criminals constantly refine their tactics, security professionals need to anticipate these moves. They, too, must innovate by developing new countermeasures before an attack even occurs. Like a chess match, staying ahead of intruders requires ingenuity that goes beyond technical skills. The best security teams have the ability to see beyond conventional approaches and the courage to pioneer novel defenses.

Finally, ethics play a defining role, particularly as security professionals are entrusted with sensitive data and powerful tools. Through misuse or negligence, these secrets and tools could cause substantial harm. Adherence to a strong ethical code serves as a psychological anchor, helping cyber pros to navigate the moral complexities of their work while prioritizing user privacy and security.

In a nutshell, working as a cybersecurity professional is one of the hardest jobs on earth.

Building a psychologically aware cybersecurity strategy

A truly effective cybersecurity strategy doesn’t just block attacks; it anticipates and adapts to human behavior. Therefore, aligning security measures with natural human tendencies can elevate an organization’s defenses significantly. This works better than relying on users to remember overly complex protocols.

For instance, training and awareness programs that incorporate psychological insights are far more impactful than traditional “box-ticking” sessions. The principles of Nudge Theory, which employs subtle prompts to influence behavior, offer a potent alternative. Well-designed programs make secure behaviors easy, attractive and timely. This guides employees toward safer practices without the punitive undertones that can breed resentment and resistance.

Creating a culture of psychological safety within an organization can also encourage employees to address security concerns proactively. When people feel safe discussing potential threats and even mistakes, the early identification of risks and a collective commitment to security becomes second nature. This “human firewall” effect, where individuals collectively protect digital assets, strengthens organizational resilience.

Behavioral analytics: The fusion of psychology and technology

User behavior analytics is where technology meets psychology in a powerful way. By analyzing behavioral patterns and detecting deviations, organizations can preemptively identify potential threats. This approach operates on the principle that individuals, even in digital spaces, follow predictable patterns. Behavioral analytics can detect anomalous behaviors — such as a sudden attempt to access restricted files or logins at unusual times — signaling a potential breach.

This combination of psychology and technology allows for dynamic, adaptive security measures that can catch threats early, often before they escalate into full-fledged incidents. By weaving human insight into the fabric of digital security, behavioral analytics represents a major step forward in cybersecurity defenses.

Rethinking the rhetoric of cybersecurity

The cybersecurity industry has long relied on fear-driven messaging to encourage secure behavior. However, experts argue that this approach, while effective in the short term, may actually discourage engagement in the long run. By using dramatic language to describe threats, the industry may be creating a sense of helplessness among the general public. Portraying cybersecurity as a field too complex and overwhelming for normal individuals to understand promotes failure.

Instead, fostering a sense of civic responsibility can empower anyone to participate in cybersecurity efforts. When people understand that their actions contribute to a safer online community, they’re more likely to engage in secure practices. Reframing cybersecurity as a shared responsibility rather than a source of fear can transform public engagement with online security.

Bridging technology and psychology for a secure future

Today, cybersecurity is no longer solely a technical issue — it is a fundamentally human one. Security strategies must weave technology and psychology together to create a comprehensive defense that accounts for both system vulnerabilities and human behavior. Cyber criminals leverage psychological tactics to manipulate individuals. A deeper understanding of this will make security stronger. Meanwhile, cybersecurity professionals rely on their mental resilience, creativity and ethical fortitude to counter these threats.

From training programs based on psychological principles to implementing behavioral analytics, incorporating human insights into cybersecurity strategies leads to a more adaptive and robust defense. By embracing psychology alongside technological advancements, we can transform cybersecurity from a reactive discipline into a proactive, resilient force.

The post Hacking the mind: Why psychology matters to cybersecurity appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Grocery store shoppers at many chains recently ran into an unwelcome surprise: empty shelves and delayed prescriptions. In early November, Ahold Delhaize USA was the victim of a cyberattack that significantly disrupted operations at more than 2,000 stores, including Hannaford, Food Lion and Stop and Shop. Specific details of the nature of the attack have not yet been publicly released.

Because the attack affected many digital systems, some stores were not able to accept credit/debit cards, while others had to shut down online ordering. Additionally, Hannaford’s website was offline for several days. Food supply issues have lasted several weeks in some cases, especially in the New England area, illustrating the impact cyberattacks have on people’s everyday lives.

Cybersecurity in the agrifood industry

The importance of cybersecurity in the food supply chain continues to increase as the agrifood industry becomes increasingly digitized. The increase in smart farming means a cybersecurity attack can even impact growing and harvesting. In addition to the production and distribution processes, a cyberattack can even impact food safety. For example, a cyberattack could interfere with technology that monitors food temperature during production, which can lead to contamination.

Cybersecurity is especially key in this industry because one issue in one segment can quickly compound across the globe. Because of the complex process of bringing food from farm to table, a single vulnerability in one small company can have a major impact on the food supply chain. Additionally, many agrifood companies rely heavily on third-party vendors.

“One challenge with ransomware attacks is that they can cause consequences for suppliers or partners of the victim company, in addition to the direct impact on the victim company itself. Considering the integrated and interconnected nature of the food and agriculture industry, a disruption in one company likely will have a cascading [effect],” according to the Farm to Table Ransomware Report by Food Ag ISAC.

For example, many grocery store chains hire vendors to transport products from warehouses to stores. A cyberattack on the transportation company can shut down critical systems, meaning that food does not arrive as scheduled, which leads to empty shelves.

“Attacks targeting suppliers, distributors or logistics providers can lead to delays in product delivery, shortages or the introduction of counterfeit products. Disruptions in the supply chain can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the profitability of companies but also impacting food availability and increasing prices for consumers,” reports Food Safety magazine.

According to Forbes, FBI Special Agent Gene Kowel, speaking at the August FBI Agriculture Threats Symposium in Nebraska, said: “The cyber risk and national security threat to farms, ranches and food processing facilities is growing exponentially. The threats are evolving, becoming more complex and severe.” He also stated that the four key threats facing the agriculture sector are ransomware attacks, foreign malware, data and intellectual property theft and bioterrorism impacting food production and the water supply. Additionally, he warned that foreign entities are actively attempting to destabilize the U.S. agriculture industry.

Recent agrifood cyberattacks

While grocery stores have dominated the headlines lately regarding agrifood cyberattacks, other companies faced cybersecurity attacks in recent years.

In October 2021, Schreiber Foods, a milk processing company, was the victim of a ransomware attack. According to ZDNET, the attack disrupted the entire milk supply due to a change in the digital processes for milk processing. Wisconsin State Farmer reported that milk deliveries resumed five days after the attack. Additionally, milk transporters were unable to access the building and the company faced a $2.5 million ransomware demand.

The highly publicized attack on JBS, the world’s largest meat-packing company, also happened in 2021. Business was disrupted at 47 locations in Australia and nine locations in the U.S. for five days after Russian hacker group Revil encrypted the organization’s systems. JBS reportedly paid $11 million in ransomware following the attack. The attack also led to some meat shortages as well as temporarily higher meat prices.

Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act

To strengthen cybersecurity in the agrifood industry, the Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act is currently in committee in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. A key component of the act is that the secretary of agriculture will conduct a study every two years on cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities within the agriculture and food sectors.

Additionally, the secretary of agriculture will work with other agencies to conduct an annual cross-sector crisis simulation exercise for food-related cyber emergencies or disruptions.

“Food security is national security, so it’s critical that American agriculture is protected from cyber threats,” says Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. “No longer just some tech issue, cyberattacks have the potential to upend folks’ daily lives and threaten our food supply — as we saw a couple of years ago when the meat-packing company JBS was taken offline by a ransomware attack. This legislation will require the Department of Agriculture to work closely with our national security agencies to ensure that adversaries like China can’t threaten our ability to feed ourselves by ourselves.”

Reducing the risk of agrifood cyberattacks

Because of the critical nature of their services in relation to the food supply, all companies involved in the agrifood industry should make cybersecurity a high priority. To help improve cybersecurity in the industry, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recently released a Food and Agriculture Cybersecurity Checklist.

Tips from the sheet include:

• Use strong passwords
• Turn on multi-factor authentication
• Recognize and report phishing
• Update software with new versions and patches
• Use cybersecurity tools to mitigate exposure
• Back up your data
• Develop cybersecurity incident response and recovery plans
• Report cybersecurity incidents to www.cisa.gov/report

While the recent empty shelves in grocery stores are a stark reminder of the importance of cybersecurity, the agrifood industry must stay proactive about addressing cybersecurity risks every day of the year.

The post How cyberattacks on grocery stores could threaten food security appeared first on Security Intelligence.

The nature of cyber warfare has evolved rapidly over the last decade, forcing the world’s governments and industries to reimagine their cybersecurity strategies. While deterrence and reactive defenses once dominated the conversation, the emergence of cyber persistence — actively hunting down threats before they materialize — has become the new frontier. This shift, spearheaded by the United States and rapidly adopted by its allies, highlights the realization that defense alone is no longer enough to secure cyberspace.

The momentum behind this proactive cyber strategy can be found in America’s Defend Forward initiative, the rise of cyber persistence among U.S. allies and the successful takedowns of infamous groups like LockBit ransomware. Meanwhile, the broader implications of this shift are revealed in the U.S. Department of State’s focus on digital solidarity in contrast to digital sovereignty.

Cyber persistence: A strategic pivot

The idea of cyber persistence, as opposed to cyber deterrence, is reshaping global cybersecurity efforts. Traditional deterrence theory, which aims to dissuade adversaries through the promise of retaliation, has failed to address the complexities of cyber criminal behavior. Malicious cyber actors, including state-sponsored entities and organized crime groups, continue to exploit vulnerabilities, which leads to critical infrastructure compromise, sensitive data theft and government or corporate network disruption.

In response, the U.S. Department of Defense 2023 Cyber Strategy reinforced the country’s commitment to “Defend Forward,” a proactive approach designed to directly disrupt adversaries’ operations. This strategy empowers cybersecurity forces to identify malicious activities before they escalate, track adversaries and take action to prevent or mitigate attacks. U.S. allies like the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and the Netherlands have subsequently adopted similar strategies. They’ve all come to realize that cyberspace requires constant vigilance and operational persistence to stay ahead of evolving threats.

As the U.S. DoD outlines, engaging adversaries early in planning is essential to creating a more secure cyberspace. This involves tracking the capabilities and intentions of malicious actors and degrading their ability to act. Such a proactive stance requires cooperation, coordination and trust among allies. This is especially true since cyber campaigns often involve joint operations where one nation may invite another into its networks to assist in defense.

The shift from deterrence to persistent engagement

Increasingly, nations like the UK and the Netherlands are taking proactive measures to combat cyber threats by operationalizing cyber persistence. For example, the UK’s National Cyber Strategy highlights the importance of actively tackling adversaries’ cyber dependencies and emphasizing the need for persistent engagement in cyberspace. Further examples of this shift include Japan’s efforts to introduce active cyber defense and Canada’s participation in “Hunt Forward” operations. Both aim to actively search for and disarm malicious actors.

NATO has also acknowledged the necessity of a more proactive cyber stance. The 2022 NATO Strategic Concept recognizes that cyberspace is “contested at all times.” The document explicitly states that the cumulative effect of cyber activities could reach the level of an armed attack, potentially triggering NATO’s mutual defense obligations under Article 5. This signals the acceptance of cyber persistence as a critical aspect of national and collective security.

While deterrence remains a core strategy for nuclear and conventional warfare, it is becoming clear that in cyberspace, persistence — constantly identifying, mitigating and neutralizing threats — is critical to preventing large-scale cyber incidents.

The LockBit ransomware takedown: A case study in persistence

The February 2024 takedown of the LockBit ransomware group under Operation Cronos serves as a prime example of how persistent cyber strategies can effectively neutralize significant threats. LockBit, one of the most prolific Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) groups, was responsible for approximately a quarter of all ransomware attacks in 2023. This included attacks on hospitals and other critical services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Operation Cronos, a coordinated international effort, resulted in significant arrests, sanctions and the seizure of LockBit’s operational infrastructure. This was not just a technical takedown but a broader effort to undermine the group’s viability. Law enforcement agencies managed to access LockBit’s internal communications, expose its affiliates and disrupt its financial networks. This cumulative disruption severely damaged the group’s reputation, making it difficult for them to regain support within the cyber crime community.

While LockBit’s ringleader, known as “LockBitSupp,” has tried to claim the group’s resurgence, analysis shows that the law enforcement operation has had lasting effects. The exposure of the group’s inner workings has sowed distrust among affiliates, with many distancing themselves from the group. The takedown’s success demonstrates the power of cyber persistence, as it involved not only technical measures but also strategic psychological operations aimed at eroding the group’s support base.

Digital solidarity vs. digital sovereignty

At the heart of the United States’ international cyber strategy lies the concept of digital solidarity, which stands in stark contrast to the protectionist policies of digital sovereignty. Digital solidarity promotes collaboration and mutual support among nations, emphasizing the need for a secure, inclusive and resilient digital ecosystem. This strategy, unveiled in the U.S. Department of State’s 2024 International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy, advocates for building international coalitions, aligning regulatory frameworks and fostering a free flow of data across borders.

The key pillars of digital solidarity include promoting an inclusive digital ecosystem, aligning governance approaches to data and advancing responsible state behavior in cyberspace. These efforts aim to ensure that all nations, especially emerging economies, have access to secure digital infrastructure and that global cooperation can thwart cyber threats through shared intelligence and mutual defense efforts.

In contrast, digital sovereignty emphasizes national control over digital infrastructure and data. Countries that adopt this stance seek to protect their digital assets by restricting foreign access to their markets and mandating data localization. While proponents argue that this approach can reduce dependence on foreign technology and enhance security, critics warn that it fragments the global digital ecosystem and makes it harder to respond collectively to cyber threats.

The tension between digital solidarity and digital sovereignty has significant implications for global cybersecurity. As the world’s digital infrastructure becomes more interconnected, the U.S. and its allies argue that collaboration, not isolation, is the key to addressing the complex cyber challenges of the future.

The future of proactive cyber defense

The shift from deterrence to persistence in cyberspace represents a new era of proactive cyber defense. By identifying vulnerabilities, disrupting adversaries’ operations and engaging in continuous cyber campaigns, the U.S. and its allies are reshaping the way nations approach cybersecurity.

Operations like the LockBit takedown underscore the effectiveness of this strategy. Plus, the emphasis on digital solidarity highlights the importance of international cooperation in creating a safer and more resilient digital ecosystem. As cyber threats continue to evolve, the persistence approach will likely become a cornerstone of modern cybersecurity. The goal is to ensure that nations can stay ahead of their adversaries and secure the future of cyberspace.

The post Taking the fight to the enemy: Cyber persistence strategy gains momentum appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Organizations often set up security rules to help reduce cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks. The 2024 Cost of a Data Breach Report discovered that 40% of all data breaches involved data distributed across multiple environments, meaning that these best-laid plans often fail in the cloud environment.

Not surprisingly, many organizations find keeping a robust security posture in the cloud to be exceptionally challenging, especially with the need to enforce security policies consistently across dynamic and expansive cloud infrastructures. The recently released X-Force Cloud Threat Landscape 2024 Report delved into which specific rules are most commonly failing. By understanding key vulnerabilities, organizations can then figure out the best approach for reducing their risks.

“Regulations are increasing, requiring organizations to implement more compliance policies with security top of mind, which puts a lot of overhead on these organizations,” says Mohit Goyal, Product Management at Red Hat Insights. “The Compliance service within Red Hat Insights provides a more elegant way to manage and deploy these policies on systems to get ahead of any gaps.”

Environment influences failure of security rules

During the research, X-Force analyzed two sets of data across the cloud — one set operating in 100% cloud-only environments and the other with a hybrid of 50% to 99% of their Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) systems in the cloud. Interestingly, researchers found a different set of most failed rules for each of the two different groups.

Goyal says that the team intentionally looked at both environments because Red Hat caters to customers across the hybrid cloud. During the research, the team discovered that in the 100% cloud group, security rules often failed due to misconfiguring assets, meaning that organizations should focus on configuration guidelines. Meanwhile, in the hybrid environment, most failed rules revolved around authentication and cryptography policies.

When asked who is often responsible for the configurations, Goyal says it varies at different organizations. At smaller companies, a single employee often wears multiple hats. However, at larger organizations, the roles are typically well defined with multiple people involved — for example, a system administrator, a security/risk administrator and a compliance administrator.

Top failed rules in organizations with 100% cloud systems

Researchers found that in situations where all data was stored in the public cloud, the most commonly failed rule was configuration and security guidelines for Linux systems. Researchers described this rule as focusing on configuring essential security and management settings in Linux systems. Examples include setting the default zone for the firewall and isolating the /tmp directory on a separate partition to enhance security and manage disk space effectively. The mitigation is configuring the default zone for the firewall service to make sure the network security is properly configured in Red Hat-based systems.

Other top failed rules include:

• Secure mount options for critical directories
• User home directory management
• Service management
• NFS service management

Top failed rules in organizations with hybrid environments

After analyzing data within a hybrid environment, researchers found that authentication and cryptography policies often failed. These rules focus on standardizing and securing authentication mechanisms and cryptographic requirements in a given policy. Organizations set these rules to ensure consistent and strong security practices across the system. The mitigation involves authselect to standardize and simplify the management of authentication settings.

Other commonly failed rules in hybrid environments include:

• Account and SSH configuration
• SSH security measures
• Umask configuration
• Process debugging restrictions

Why mitigation commonly fails

Because each rule contains mitigation, a common question from the report was why mitigations so often fail. But the answer is not a simple one. The reasons can include a wide range of factors, including misconfiguration, lack of training and different environments.

“Security, in general, is a complex area, and with the threat landscape constantly changing and evolving, it’s hard to maintain the status quo,” Goyal says. “As new technologies and new requirements come into play and the footprint increases, it ultimately leads to a lot of complexity.”

Goyal predicts that the policies are going to increase in number and only become more complex. Organizations need solutions to keep their head wrapped around the complexities in a way that reduces the burden of operational overhead. By highlighting the gaps, leaders can understand where the risk lies and create a plan to close those gaps.

Reducing rule failures

Confirming that all rules are followed and the mitigation is used correctly when a rule fails is time-consuming, explains Goyal. At large enterprises, cybersecurity professionals bear a lot of burden with complex processes. Team members must constantly optimize and check for security while also completing other tasks. Organizations are increasingly turning to Ansible automation, such as with Red Hat Insights, for more effective and efficient remediation.

With Red Hat Insights, an organization can deploy its compliance policies (i.e.: a PCI or HIPAA data governance policy, etc.) on RHEL systems. After analyzing these systems, Insights then displays the level of compliance/non-compliance of the systems to the organization’s policies; it also recommends actions to address the non-compliance. Organizations can select to deploy the Ansible playbook on the systems with just a few clicks to become compliant again. Because the process is automated, it’s more effective and efficient than manually identifying and remediating each system separately.

“Large enterprises need this ability to help keep their costs in control and prevent security gaps from being exploited by bad actors,” says Goyal.

Cloud security: A shared responsibility

Because multiple organizations are involved in a cloud environment, a key question is often about who bears the responsibility for security — the organization or the vendor. Goyal says that security is a dual responsibility.

“As a vendor to our customer, there is a responsibility to make sure they have a product that is built with its security posture front-and-center and has feature-rich functionality that allows organizations to effectively manage their organizational IT security strategy. However, they have to also configure and deploy the product correctly,” says Goyal. “Additionally, organizations need to make sure that their cloud provider emphasizes operational security. At the same time, organizations also need to take ownership for the security of the configurable components of their environment.”

The post 2024 Cloud Threat Landscape Report: How does cloud security fail? appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Imagine this scenario: A sophisticated, malicious phishing campaign targets a large financial institution. The attackers use emails generated by artificial intelligence (AI) that closely mimic the company’s internal communications. The emails contain malicious links designed to steal employee credentials, which the attackers could use to gain access to company assets and data for unknown purposes.

The organization’s AI-powered cybersecurity solution, which continuously monitors network traffic and user behavior, detects several anomalies associated with the attack, blocks access to the suspicious domains across the network, quarantines the phishing emails, resets passwords for all potentially compromised accounts and sends real-time alerts to the security operations center, providing detailed information about the attack vector and affected systems.

Using predictive analytics, the AI suggests potential next steps the attackers might take, allowing the security team to strengthen defenses in those areas proactively.

The good guys won. But was the AI solution worth the price? What’s the value in dollars of that victory? It’s easy to measure the investment in AI. But how do you measure the return on that investment? Specifically, how do you measure the value of data never stolen, unknown reputational damage that never happened, customer trust never lost or reduced operational risks never incurred?

The rise of AI cybersecurity

To be sure, cybersecurity AI spending is set to increase dramatically. Organizations spent $24 billion in 2023, with an expected rise to $133 billion by 2030. Cybersecurity professionals and the companies they work for will increasingly rely on advanced AI solutions as threats grow and the cost of data breaches also rises.

The challenging nature of cybersecurity ROI is compounded by many other factors — dozens, hundreds or thousands of attempted cyberattacks per year per organization; the lack of universally accepted metrics or calculations for cybersecurity ROI; the long payback period for investments in cybersecurity AI; the fast-changing nature of the threat landscape; the fact that cybersecurity investments also touch areas like operational efficiency, regulatory compliance and others.

Historically, organizations calculated ROI in cybersecurity investments by estimating money saved in the absence of security incidents. But that fails to account for proactive security measures, efficiency gains in operations and the overall security posture. With the integration of AI, cybersecurity has fundamentally changed, offering enhanced threat detection and prevention capabilities beyond simply measuring the absence of incidents.

A proactive approach and improved operational efficiency through task automation provide tangible benefits not captured in traditional ROI calculations.

New metrics for ROI calculation

The use of AI tools has transformed the typical cybersecurity ROI calculation, introducing several quantifiable metrics:

• Reduction in false positives
• Time saved on routine tasks
• Faster incident response times
• Improved threat intelligence accuracy
• Cost savings from prevented breaches

These metrics offer a more comprehensive view of the value derived from AI-powered cybersecurity investments, enabling organizations to make more informed decisions about resource allocation and strategic planning.

Cost savings can also be measured in the aggregate. According to the IBM 2024 Cost of a Data Breach report, organizations extensively using security AI and automation in prevention workflows saved an average of $2.2 million in breach costs compared to those without such technologies.

Still, measuring AI cybersecurity ROI comes with challenges, including difficulty attributing prevented incidents directly to AI, the constantly evolving threat landscape and balancing initial investment costs with long-term benefits.

Taking a holistic approach to cybersecurity AI ROI

Organizations can leverage established frameworks, such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, to effectively measure and communicate AI’s ROI in cybersecurity. By aligning AI initiatives with these functions, organizations can more accurately measure their impact on overall cybersecurity performance.

To effectively measure the impact of AI on cybersecurity ROI, organizations should focus on specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

• Mean time to detect
• Mean time to respond
• Security operational efficiency
• Threat intelligence accuracy
• Compliance adherence rate

The best approach is to adopt a more comprehensive approach that uses risk assessment frameworks, measures risk reduction, considers and estimates intangible benefits and regularly reviews and updates calculations.

Organizations must adopt a holistic approach that considers the proactive capabilities, efficiency gains and quantifiable metrics provided by AI-powered solutions. This comprehensive evaluation allows a more accurate assessment of cybersecurity investments’ true value and impact in today’s complex threat landscape.

Of course, cyberattacks don’t happen randomly or in a vacuum. Take the follow-on consequences of the ongoing cybersecurity skills gap, which can be self-enlarging, according to Sam Hector, senior strategy leader of IBM Security.

“When you don’t have enough skilled experts in monitoring and defending your infrastructure, a few things happen,” Hector said. “The time to triage alerts grows as the queue of incidents to review becomes longer, meaning you’re more likely to be breached, and attackers dwell times increase (when they are in your environment undetected) as you’re less likely to find the needle in the haystack. The time to detect increasing directly leads to higher breach costs on average.”

And the problem keeps growing: “Teams that are stretched too thin don’t have the time to devote to improving cybersecurity processes, integration and efficiency,” Hector said. “They’re unable to drill exercises and embark on further training as they’re too focused on keeping the lights on. This means over time, they’re less effective comparable to the threat landscape, and misconfigurations and gaps develop that attackers can exploit.”

Hector said persistent attackers are unlikely to go unnoticed by these weakening defenses: “If there’s a specific industry, region or even organization that is known to be struggling to acquire cybersecurity skills, this puts them at increased risk of being targeted by attackers who will be anticipating weaker defenses.”

An ongoing shift in cybersecurity investment

The integration of AI in cybersecurity has fundamentally changed how organizations approach and measure their security investments. By providing more tangible and comprehensive ROI metrics, AI enables organizations to make data-driven decisions about their cybersecurity strategies. As cyber threats continue to evolve, the role of AI in cybersecurity will only grow more critical, making it essential for organizations to invest in — and effectively measure — the impact of these technologies.

The post How to calculate your AI-powered cybersecurity’s ROI appeared first on Security Intelligence.

On September 25, CISA issued a stark reminder that critical infrastructure remains a primary target for cyberattacks. Vulnerable systems in industrial sectors, including water utilities, continue to be exploited due to poor cyber hygiene practices. Using unsophisticated methods like brute-force attacks and leveraging default passwords, threat actors have repeatedly managed to compromise operational technology (OT) and industrial control systems (ICS).

Attacks on the industrial sector have been particularly costly. The 2024 IBM Cost of a Data Breach report found the average total cost of a data breach in the industrial sector was $5.56 million — an 18% increase for the industry compared to 2023. This represents the highest data breach cost increase of all industries surveyed in the report, rising by an average of $830,000 per breach over last year.

Ongoing vulnerabilities pose a serious threat to public safety and national security, especially as water systems and other critical infrastructure providers remain underprepared in the current threat landscape. Let’s take a closer look at the current state of critical infrastructure security, highlighting recent incidents, efforts to address vulnerabilities and the need for further collaboration between the government and private sectors.

Arkansas City Water Treatment Facility attacked

The cybersecurity incident at the Arkansas City Water Treatment Facility on September 22 exemplifies the growing risks. While city officials emphasized that the water supply remained safe and no disruption to service occurred, the breach still forced the facility to switch to manual operations. The incident is currently under investigation, with local authorities and cybersecurity experts collaborating to resolve the issue and prevent further attacks. But the Arkansas City breach is not an isolated incident; it mirrors a larger trend of attacks on water systems.

CISA has issued multiple warnings regarding the susceptibility of water and wastewater systems to cyber threats. Intruders often exploit outdated and unsecured OT and ICS environments, where systems are exposed to the internet or still using default credentials. This means cyber criminals can gain access using relatively simple techniques, which raises concerns about the overall preparedness of critical infrastructure operators.

CISA warnings and hacktivist activity

CISA’s September alert is not the first indication of the heightened threat to water and other critical infrastructure providers. Earlier in 2024, the agency warned that Russia-affiliated hacktivists were actively targeting ICS and OT environments in U.S. critical infrastructure facilities. Water systems, dams and sectors, such as energy and food, were particularly vulnerable to these attacks.

The situation worsened with the rise of the Cyber Army of Russia Reborn, a hacktivist group tied to Advanced Persistent Threat 44 (APT44), commonly known as Sandworm. The group has been quite busy exploiting weak cybersecurity postures of smaller water systems that lack adequate cyber defense resources.

According to Keith Lunden of Mandiant, “We expect these attacks to continue for the foreseeable future given the lack of dedicated cybersecurity personnel for many small- and mid-sized organizations operating OT.” Unfortunately, hacktivist groups have exploited these gaps with relative ease. And without rapid intervention, these attacks will likely continue.

The State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP)

Amidst the growing cyber threats, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recognized the need for more support for state and local government cybersecurity. In fiscal year 2024, DHS announced the allocation of $280 million in grant funding for the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program (SLCGP). This funding aims to assist state, local, tribal and territorial governments in enhancing their cyber resilience. A special emphasis has been placed on protecting critical infrastructure systems like water utilities, energy grids and emergency services.

These grants will help organizations improve monitoring systems, patch vulnerabilities and implement critical cybersecurity measures such as multi-factor authentication and regular system audits. In states like Michigan, for example, government agencies are already working with local water utilities to provide cybersecurity training and support. The DHS funding could greatly expand these efforts, offering a much-needed boost to the security posture of critical infrastructure providers.

The Cyberspace Solarium Commission

In 2019, the Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) was established by the U.S. Congress to develop a national cyber defense strategy. Currently, approximately 80% of its recommendations have been implemented. However, a final push is needed to address critical gaps, particularly regarding private-sector collaboration and insurance reforms.

One major challenge is identifying the “minimum security burdens” for systemically important entities critical to national security. This would ensure that high-priority infrastructure providers, such as key transportation systems and water utilities, receive the necessary support to prevent catastrophic events.

The CSC also highlighted the need to develop an economic continuity plan for cyber events. This would be nothing less than an incident response and resilience plan to protect the U.S. economy in the face of a major cyberattack. The commission also emphasized the need for better information sharing between government agencies, private industries and international partners to protect critical infrastructure from evolving cyber threats.

During a recent panel discussion, Senator Angus King, co-chair of CSC 2.0, pointed to the difficulties of building trust between the government and private sectors. Private entities own and operate the majority of the nation’s critical infrastructure, but historical tensions make collaboration challenging. King noted that the situation mirrors early tensions that existed between state officials and CISA. Nonetheless, the collaboration between private industry and government is essential to address the growing threat to critical infrastructure.

The state of critical infrastructure cybersecurity

The cybersecurity posture of U.S. critical infrastructure remains a concern. As seen in attacks like the Arkansas City Water Treatment Facility and other incidents targeting internet service providers, threat actors are increasingly focusing on essential services. These attacks are not limited to small municipalities. Larger-scale infrastructure providers, including ISPs and managed service providers, have also been targets.

The FBI recently disclosed that China-linked hackers compromised more than 260,000 network devices, underscoring the scale of the problem. Meanwhile, attacks attributed to the Chinese government have targeted ISPs and managed service providers through vulnerabilities in Versa Networks’ SD-WAN software, demonstrating the growing sophistication of these threats.

While the U.S. government is actively working to improve critical infrastructure cybersecurity, the attacks on water treatment systems and other essential services clearly reveal that more needs to be done. The DHS grant program and the recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission represent critical steps in this effort, but collaboration between government, private industry and international partners will be key to building a resilient defense against evolving threats.

The safety of critical infrastructure remains a pressing concern. Recent events should serve as a wake-up call for operators, policymakers and the public to take action before a cyberattack occurs that impacts human life and health. Undoubtedly, the threats are real — and any meaningful response requires a concerted effort.

The post Is the water safe? The state of critical infrastructure cybersecurity appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Cybersecurity concerns in 2024 can be summed up in two letters: AI (or five letters if you narrow it down to gen AI). Organizations are still in the early stages of understanding the risks and rewards of this technology. For all the good it can do to improve data protection, keep up with compliance regulations and enable faster threat detection, threat actors are also using AI to accelerate their social engineering attacks and sabotage AI models with malware.

AI might have gotten the lion’s share of attention in 2024, but it wasn’t the only cyber threat organizations had to deal with. Credential theft continues to be problematic, with a 71% year-over-year increase in attacks using compromised credentials. The skills shortage continues, costing companies an additional $1.76 million in a data breach aftermath. And as more companies rely on the cloud, it shouldn’t be surprising that there has been a spike in cloud intrusions.

But there have been positive steps in cybersecurity over the past year. CISA’s Secure by Design program signed on more than 250 software manufacturers to improve their cybersecurity hygiene. CISA also introduced its Cyber Incident Reporting Portal to improve the way organizations share cyber information.

Last year’s cybersecurity predictions focused heavily on AI and its impact on how security teams will operate in the future. This year’s predictions also emphasize AI, showing that cybersecurity may have reached a point where security and AI are interdependent on each other, for both good and bad.

Here are this year’s predictions.

Shadow AI is everywhere (Akiba Saeedi, Vice President, IBM Security Product Management)

Shadow AI will prove to be more common — and risky — than we thought. Businesses have more and more generative AI models deployed across their systems each day, sometimes without their knowledge. In 2025, enterprises will truly see the scope of “shadow AI” – unsanctioned AI models used by staff that aren’t properly governed. Shadow AI presents a major risk to data security, and businesses that successfully confront this issue in 2025 will use a mix of clear governance policies, comprehensive workforce training and diligent detection and response.

Identity’s transformation (Wes Gyure, Executive Director, IBM Security Product Management)

How enterprises think about identity will continue to transform in the wake of hybrid cloud and app modernization initiatives. Recognizing that identity has become the new security perimeter, enterprises will continue their shift to an Identity-First strategy, managing and securing access to applications and critical data, including gen AI models. In 2025, a fundamental component of this strategy is to build an effective identity fabric, a product-agnostic integrated set of identity tools and services. When done right, this will be a welcome relief to security professionals, taming the chaos and risk caused by a proliferation of multicloud environments and scattered identity solutions.

Everyone must work together to manage threats (Sam Hector, Global Strategy Leader, IBM Security)

Cybersecurity teams will no longer be able to effectively manage threats in isolation. Threats from generative AI and hybrid cloud adoption are rapidly evolving. Meanwhile, the risk quantum computing poses to modern standards of public-key encryption will become unavoidable. Given the maturation of new quantum-safe cryptography standards, there will be a drive to discover encrypted assets and accelerate the modernization of cryptography management. Next year, successful organizations will be those where executives and diverse teams jointly develop and enforce cybersecurity strategies, embedding security into the organizational culture.

Prepare for post-quantum cryptography standards (Ray Harishankar, IBM Fellow, IBM Quantum Safe)

As organizations begin the transition to post-quantum cryptography over the next year, agility will be crucial to ensure systems are prepared for continued transformation, particularly as the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) continues to expand its toolbox of post-quantum cryptography standards. NIST’s initial post-quantum cryptography standards were a signal to the world that the time is now to start the journey to becoming quantum-safe. But equally important is the need for crypto agility, ensuring that systems can rapidly adapt to new cryptographic mechanisms and algorithms in response to changing threats, technological advances and vulnerabilities. Ideally, automation will streamline and accelerate the process.

Data will become a vital part of AI security (Suja Viswesan, vice president of Security Software Development, IBM)

Data and AI security will become an essential ingredient of trustworthy AI. “Trustworthy AI” is often interpreted as AI that is transparent, fair and privacy-protecting. These are critical characteristics. But if AI and the data powering it aren’t also secure, then all other characteristics are compromised. In 2025, as businesses, governments and individuals interact with AI more often and with higher stakes, data and AI security will be viewed as an even more important part of the trustworthy AI recipe.

Organizations will continue learning the juxtaposition of AI’s benefits and threats (Mark Hughes, Global Managing Partner, Cybersecurity Services, IBM)

As AI matures from proof-of-concept to wide-scale deployment, enterprises reap the benefits of productivity and efficiency gains, including automating security and compliance tasks to protect their data and assets. But organizations need to be aware of AI being used as a new tool or conduit for threat actors to breach long-standing security processes and protocols. Businesses need to adopt security frameworks, best practice recommendations and guardrails for AI and adapt quickly — to address both the benefits and risks associated with rapid AI advancements.

Greater understanding of AI-assisted versus AI-powered threats (Troy Bettencourt, Global Partner and Head of IBM X-Force)

Protect against AI-assisted threats; plan for AI-powered threats. There is a distinction between AI-powered and AI-assisted threats, including how organizations should think about their proactive security posture. AI-powered attacks, like deepfake video scams, have been limited to date; today’s threats remain primarily AI-assisted — meaning AI can help threat actors create variants of existing malware or a better phishing email lure. To address current AI-assisted threats, organizations should prioritize implementing end-to-end security for their own AI solutions, including protecting user interfaces, APIs, language models and machine learning operations, while remaining mindful of strategies to defend against future AI-powered attacks.

There’s a very clear message from these predictions that understanding how AI can help and hurt an organization is vital to ensuring your company and its assets are protected in 2025 and beyond.

The post Cybersecurity trends: IBM’s predictions for 2025 appeared first on Security Intelligence.

In our mobile-first/mobile-last world, many employees’ work days both start and end on a mobile device. Mobile devices are now essential tools for productivity and communication. As many organizations transition to hybrid work environments, mobile devices offer a rich target for malicious actors because they are often the least protected corporate devices and offer platforms from which to launch social engineering attacks.

Unlike traditional computers, which are generally well-defended with antivirus software and cybersecurity protocols, mobile devices are frequently left vulnerable due to a lack of user awareness and proper protection.

Mobile devices have unique vulnerabilities that cyber criminals increasingly exploit. Yet, because mobile device security has historically received less attention, most users and IT teams don’t fully recognize these risks. This lack of awareness often translates into a lack of cyber hygiene, such as timely updates and the installation of essential security software, leaving devices susceptible to a growing number of cyber threats.

Why are mobile devices more vulnerable?

Mobile devices face different security challenges than desktops or laptops, as they rely on various applications, connect to public networks and carry sensitive data in pockets and purses. Here are a few ways they are at greater risk:

1. Frequent connection to public networks: Mobile devices frequently connect to public Wi-Fi in coffee shops, airports and other common spaces, making them easy targets for attackers. Public Wi-Fi networks are often unsecured, allowing hackers to intercept sensitive data, including login credentials and personal information.
2. Lack of routine updates: Unlike desktop computers, where security patches and updates are standard practice, mobile devices are often left with outdated software. This is problematic as mobile operating system updates are essential to patch known vulnerabilities.
3. Inconsistent security across devices: Businesses often use a mix of iOS and Android devices, each with its own security protocols and vulnerabilities. Android, for instance, has a more fragmented ecosystem, where updates are not universally applied across devices, leaving users exposed. In addition, iOS users may not be aware that jailbreaking their phones disables important security features.
4. More personal apps and data at risk: Mobile devices often hold both personal and professional data, including emails, contacts and payment information, as well as business data. The mixture of personal and business use increases exposure to potential breaches, as malicious apps downloaded for personal use can compromise corporate security.
5. Malware-laden apps: Although app stores like Google Play and Apple’s App Store vet applications, malicious apps still manage to slip through. These apps can contain malware that gathers data, spies on activity or even takes control of a device, risking both personal and business information.

Common mobile threats

In addition to the vulnerabilities mentioned above, there are specific mobile threats every user and IT team should be aware of:

• Phishing attacks: Phishing remains one of the most effective attack vectors, and mobile users are highly susceptible due to the small screens and simplified user interfaces. Emails, SMS texts and even social media direct messages can carry phishing links that result in credential theft or malware.
• Malware and spyware: Malicious apps can install malware that collects sensitive data or tracks a user’s activity without consent. Known as spyware, this malware can access everything from location to keystrokes, making it a prime threat to both personal privacy and business security.
• Man-in-the-middle attacks (MITM): Public Wi-Fi networks are ideal for MITM attacks, where attackers intercept communication between a mobile device and a server. Sensitive information, such as login credentials, can be exposed without the user realizing it.
• Unsecured devices and theft: Because mobile devices are portable, they are also at a higher risk of being lost or stolen. When devices don’t have proper security, such as screen locks or device encryption, sensitive information can be accessed by anyone who picks up the device.

Best practices for mobile cybersecurity

While mobile threats are on the rise, there are ways to reduce the risk of attacks. Individuals and organizations can take proactive measures to secure their mobile devices and protect sensitive data. Regularly updating operating systems, using mobile security software and employing strong authentication are essential steps for protecting mobile devices. Additionally, limiting app permissions and promoting cybersecurity training among employees can significantly reduce risks.

For businesses, implementing a mobile device management (MDM) solution, like IBM MaaS360, is particularly valuable. MDM provides critical control and visibility, allowing organizations to enforce security policies, manage devices remotely and wipe data if a device is lost or stolen — ensuring comprehensive security across all mobile devices accessing company resources.

Embracing mobile security for the hybrid workforce

As more organizations embrace hybrid work models, mobile device security is no longer optional. In a world where business data is accessed on the go, employees and IT teams must take mobile security seriously. Without proper safeguards, the productivity benefits of mobile devices are outweighed by the increased security risks they pose.

IBM MaaS360 Mobile Threat Defense add-ons (Professional and Advanced) represent a major evolution in the endpoint security capabilities of the IBM MaaS360 platform and the enterprise mobility market. The new add-ons consolidate devices, users, threats and vulnerabilities into a unified endpoint management and security platform. MaaS360 Mobile Threat Defense provides device management, mobile threat defense, seamless integration with existing cybersecurity stacks and AI-driven security insights to accelerate threat assessment and response.

IBM MaaS360 Mobile Threat Defense Advanced represents a significant advance in how organizations adopt and leverage mobile device defense. As an integrated extension of IBM MaaS360, IBM MaaS360 Mobile Threat Defense Advanced combines simplicity and security in a single solution with a fully automated deployment and zero-touch device activation. The platform provides on-device protection powered by machine learning and features near real-time dashboards to identify risky users and devices, as well as detect and respond to advanced and persistent mobile threats.

MaaS360 Unified Endpoint Management, combined with the MaaS360 Mobile Threat Defense Professional add-on, provides IT administrators with a comprehensive, integrated, end-to-end solution that brings together best-in-class endpoint management and mobile threat defense. Administrators can manage and protect their mobile ecosystem from a central point of control with granular endpoint security policies and automated, proactive threat detection and response.

These offerings provide organizations with protection from evolving mobile threats. They also improve employee productivity while reducing risks to corporate data and employee privacy.

If you want to learn more about the significant evolution of the IBM MaaS360 platform and how IBM MaaS360 Mobile Threat Defense provides you with a simple way to protect your mobile users and corporate data from advanced mobile threats, register for our FREE webinar on January 14th here.

The post Mobile device security: Why protection is critical in the hybrid workforce appeared first on Security Intelligence.

The focus on data privacy started to quickly shift beyond compliance in recent years and is expected to move even faster in the near future. Not surprisingly, the Thomson Reuters Risk & Compliance Survey Report found that 82% of respondents cited data and cybersecurity concerns as their organization’s greatest risk. However, the majority of organizations noticed a recent shift: that their organization has been moving from compliance as a “check the box” task to a strategic function.

With this evolution in data privacy, many organizations find that they need to proactively make changes to their approach to set themselves up for the future. Here are five key considerations to get ready for the future of data privacy.

1. Create a process for staying up to date on new and evolving regulations

While data privacy is more than simply compliance, your organization must comply with all regulations first and foremost — or else risk fines and reputational damage. However, regulations are constantly being passed and changed, making it exceptionally challenging to stay up to date. As of September 2024, 20 states had consumer data privacy laws, with legislation pending in numerous other states. While the U.S. does not currently have a federal data privacy law, the American Privacy Rights Act is in the first stage of legislation.

As the data privacy regulation landscape continues to change, organizations must create a process to manage all pertinent regulations, which can be challenging for global companies. Because organizations must comply with the regulations of their customer locations, not the company’s locations, global businesses often find themselves bound by many different regulations. Organizations are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence (AI) with tools that monitor all relevant regulations and ensure compliance, which saves time and reduces fines.

2. Focus on balancing data privacy with analytics and AI goals

AI at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School found that the percentage of employees who used AI weekly increased from 37% in 2023 to 73% in 2024. However, this significant and rapid increase in AI adoption has created significant data privacy issues. Top concerns include a lack of data transparency, new endpoints for vulnerabilities, third-party vendors and potential regulatory gaps. At the same time, businesses not using AI will likely quickly fall behind competitors in productivity and personalization.

Because not using AI is rarely the right business decision, organizations must take a strategic approach to creating a balance between business value and data security. While technology is part of the solution, platforms and systems cannot solve the challenges without a balanced approach. By creating processes and a framework that helps organizations evaluate risks and benefits, businesses can make smart business decisions with regard to data privacy. For example, a company may adopt automation throughout their organization using AI except in use cases that involve sensitive customer and employee data.

3. Consider privacy-preserving machine learning (PPML)

By using specific techniques in AI and analytics, organizations can reduce data privacy risks. Many organizations are turning to PPML, which is an initiative started by Microsoft to protect data privacy when training large-capacity language models. Here are the three components of PPML defined by Microsoft:

1. Understand: Organizations should conduct threat modeling and attack research while also identifying properties and guarantees. Additionally, leaders need to understand regulatory requirements.
2. Measure: To determine the current status of data privacy, leaders should capture vulnerabilities quantitatively. Next, teams should develop and apply frameworks to monitor risks and mitigation success.
3. Mitigate: After gaining a full picture of data privacy, teams must develop and apply techniques to reduce privacy risks. Lastly, leaders must meet all legal and compliance regulations.

4. Focus on data minimization

In the past, many businesses defaulted to keeping all — or at least most of — their data for a lengthy period of time. However, all data stored and saved must follow compliance regulations, causing many organizations to use a strategy referred to as data minimization.

Deloitte defines data minimization as taking steps to determine what information is needed, how it’s protected and used and how long to keep it. By taking this measured approach and determining which data to keep, organizations can reduce costs, make it easier to find the right data and improve compliance. Additionally, it’s easier and takes fewer resources to secure a smaller volume of data.

5. Create a culture of data privacy

Just like cybersecurity, data privacy is not simply the job of specific employees. Instead, organizations need to instill the mindset that every employee is responsible for data privacy. Creating a data privacy culture doesn’t happen overnight or with a single meeting. Instead, leaders must work to instill the values and focus over time. The first step is for leaders to become champions, express the shift in responsibility and “walk the walk” in terms of data privacy.

Because data privacy depends on team members following the processes and requirements specified, organizations must not simply dictate the rules but instead must explain the importance of data privacy. When employees understand the risks of not following the processes as well as the consequences to the organization and its consumers, they are more likely to comply.

Additionally, leaders should measure compliance with the processes to determine the current state and then the goal. By then offering incentives, organizations can help encourage compliance as well as stress its overall importance.

Start crafting your data privacy approach now

As your team focuses on planning for 2025 and beyond, now is the time to pause to make sure that your approach and goals align with where the industry is moving. Organizations that understand where data privacy is likely headed and take the steps needed to align their goals with the future of data privacy can be better prepared to more effectively gain business value from their data while still ensuring compliance.

The post Preparing for the future of data privacy appeared first on Security Intelligence.

The best cybersecurity guidelines have made a huge difference in protecting data from theft and compromise, both in the United States and around the world.

These guidelines are comprehensive sets of recommended practices, procedures and principles designed to help organizations and individual people safeguard their digital assets, systems and data from malicious attacks. They can cover a wide range of practices and exist in part to collect and share best practices and strategies based on industry standards and expert knowledge. Crucially, they’re frequently updated to address evolving threats and technological advancements.

Truly effective cybersecurity guidelines serve as a roadmap for maximizing security. They are comprehensive, addressing both technical and organizational aspects. They come with clear governance structures, detailed implementation plans and the flexibility to adapt. And they recognize the importance of the human element, focusing on user empowerment and education rather than assuming and criticizing user ignorance.

However, not all cybersecurity guidelines are created equal. The least effective practices tend to overemphasize technology at the expense of human factors, neglect usability considerations, fail to address operational aspects or lack provisions for continuous assessment and improvement.

Here are the five cybersecurity guidelines that have made the biggest positive impact and three that could use some work.

1. NIST CSF

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) is one of the most effective and influential cybersecurity guidelines. One reason for that is that it’s comprehensive and built around five core functions: identify, protect, detect, respond and recover. This structure provides organizations with a holistic view of cybersecurity risk management, ensuring that all critical aspects are addressed.

The NIST CSF evolved over three main iterations: Version 1.0 was initially released in 2014, followed by a minor update to Version 1.1 in 2018 and a major overhaul with Version 2.0 in 2024.

It’s also flexible. Organizations of all sizes and across various sectors can readily adapt the framework to their specific needs, making it widely applicable.

2. ISO 27001

The ISO 27001 standard has made a big difference in global cybersecurity due to its highly systematic approach and emphasis on continuous improvement. It offers a structured methodology for identifying, assessing and treating information security risks. As an internationally recognized standard, ISO 27001 certification is respected across various industries and borders.

3. CIS Controls

The Center for Internet Security (CIS) Controls have become widely adopted as a practical and effective set of cybersecurity guidelines. The guidelines are characterized by prioritized actions, addressing the most critical security measures and helping organizations allocate resources efficiently. The framework’s tiered implementation allows organizations to tailor their strategy based on size and cybersecurity maturity. CIS regularly updates the controls to address emerging threats and evolving best practices.

4. CSA Cloud Controls Matrix

The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix stands out thanks to its cloud-specific focus, addressing the unique security challenges inherent in cloud computing. Its comprehensive coverage spans multiple security domains, including application security, encryption and identity management. The matrix’s interoperability aligns with other major standards and regulations, facilitating compliance across multiple frameworks for organizations.

5. PCI DSS

The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) has greatly improved payment card security despite its industry-specific nature. Organizations handling payment card data must comply with PCI DSS, ensuring widespread adoption. The standard offers detailed and actionable requirements for protecting cardholder data. And it regularly evolves to address emerging threats and technologies in the payment card industry.

Some cybersecurity guidelines haven’t made such an impact

Sadly, some cybersecurity guidelines haven’t been received as fondly as the five listed above. Here’s the cybersecurity guidelines Hall of Shame:

The TSA’s initial pipeline directive

In the wake of the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued its initial pipeline security directive, known as Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01, on May 27, 2021.

The directive aimed to enhance cybersecurity measures for pipeline owners and operators across the United States.

The initial directive mandated several key requirements for pipeline companies. It called for the designation of a Cybersecurity Coordinator who would be available 24/7 to respond to incidents and coordinate with government agencies. Additionally, companies were required to report cybersecurity incidents to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within 12 hours of detection.

Many cybersecurity experts viewed it as hastily implemented and based on inadequate industry consultation. The directive was too prescriptive in some parts and too vague in others, according to critics. And it was slammed as being too inflexible.

The directive was revised and satisfied many of the industry criticisms.

The UN cyber crime treaty

The United Nations finalized and approved a new global cyber crime convention in August, marking a significant milestone in international efforts to combat cyber crime. The treaty is a milestone because it’s the first cyber crime treaty negotiated and accepted by consensus among all UN member states (after three years of negotiations).

But some critics say the treaty would effectively criminalize cybersecurity research, that it’s outdated and overly prescriptive. They say it might actually weaken global cybersecurity.

Draft U.S. cyber reporting rules

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has recently proposed draft rules for cyber incident reporting in the United States, which could impact how critical infrastructure companies report cyberattacks to the federal government.

The draft rules target companies that own or operate systems deemed critical infrastructure by the U.S. government. This includes sectors such as healthcare, energy, manufacturing and financial services. The rules also extend to companies with operations vital to a sector’s functionality, including various service providers.

Some organizations have expressed concern that the reporting requirements may be burdensome (especially to smaller organizations), costly and overlapping with existing requirements.

The National Association of Manufacturers said the rules are overly broad and could affect more than 300,000 entities, casting doubt on whether all target organizations are involved with “critical infrastructure.”

The best cybersecurity guidelines strike the right balance

Cybersecurity guidelines are intended to improve security. And the best ones are vital tools that advance organizations toward that objective. Crafting excellent guidelines requires plentiful industry input, with comprehensive and broad issues covered and plenty of flexibility to allow for different organizational sizes and types.

The post The 5 most impactful cybersecurity guidelines (and 3 that fell flat) appeared first on Security Intelligence.

Ask CISOs why they think there is a cyber skills shortage in their organization, what keeps them up at night or what the most important issue facing the industry is — at some point, even if not the first response, they will bring up budgets.

For example, at RSA Conference 2024, a roundtable discussion about issues facing the cybersecurity industry, one CISO stated bluntly that budgets — or lack thereof — are the biggest problem. At a time when everything is getting more expensive, the CISO said, security budgets are being slashed.

As for the cybersecurity talent shortage, the 2024 ISC2 Cybersecurity Workforce Study noted that “39% said a lack of budget was the top reason for cyber shortages, replacing a shortage of talent as the previous top reason for staff shortages.” According to Forrester’s 2024 Cybersecurity Benchmarks Global Report, the cybersecurity budget is just 5.7% of the entire IT budget, making it very difficult for CISOs to bring in the right personnel or upgrade tools and solutions.

However, it might not be the dollar amount that is the problem as much as where the budget is coming from. CEOs think about cybersecurity differently when it is tied to IT and when the CISO reports directly to the CIO versus when the CISO can present cybersecurity as a vital cog in overall business operations and tie it directly to business risk, the Forrester report found.

“CISOs who can articulate the business value of cybersecurity, demonstrating how it can drive revenue and support strategic goals, are more likely to secure the necessary funding. This shift also reflects a growing recognition of cybersecurity’s strategic importance beyond mere IT operations,” Louis Columbus wrote.

Key issues in cybersecurity funding

Once cybersecurity is approached as a key factor in business operations rather than as a function of IT, CEOs and CISOs are more likely to be on the same page when it comes to budget.

“Security funding and oversight is a top priority for both the management team and the Board of Directors,” said Dave Gerry, CEO of Bugcrowd.

“Cybersecurity investment uplift is prioritized against the cyber threats we face as a business; the IT risks that we have identified and need to remediate or the customer and compliance obligations that we need to ensure,” Gerry added. “Thematically, however, it all points back to ensuring that the confidentiality, integrity and availability of our data we reside over is protected — whether it’s that of customers, employees or critical business partners, whilst enabling our business in-turn.”

Risk prioritization and business continuity are two key areas that George Jones, CISO at Critical Start, focuses on. Along with emerging threats and vulnerability management, Jones says these four items are the pillars of security for the enterprise as they are aligned with overall business goals and objectives.

One of the drivers behind realigning cybersecurity investments is the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) new rules around the disclosure of cybersecurity incidents. Organizations are now also required to share details about their cybersecurity risk management programs, particularly around any financial information.

“After recent SEC guidelines were announced, Boards are more focused than ever on cyber risk reduction and ensuring adequate funding is critical, especially as organization’s attack surfaces continue to rapidly expand,” said Gerry.

Collaboration between CISOs and CEOs

While CISOs and CEOs (and, in many cases, in conjunction with the CFO) have to build an ongoing dialogue about cybersecurity investments, they are coming to the table with two different interests.

“The CEO lens will be focused on obtaining satisfaction that the security initiatives deliver value with tolerable impacts on productivity, but more importantly looking for the potential of competitive advantage,” said Gareth Lindahl-Wise, CISO at Ontinue. The CISO’s approach, on the other hand, focuses on risk prevention, mitigation and solutions to meet all of the organization’s legal, regulatory and contractual obligations.

The overall goal should be to create a security posture advantageous in gaining or retaining customers or attracting investment. Ultimately, said Lindahl-Wise, these decisions lie with the CEO and board.

“When it comes to funding and risk acceptance, CISO is, largely, an expert advisor — if an informed and conscious decision has been made by a CEO, then one should argue the CISO has discharged their responsibilities,” Lindahl-Wise added.

CEO Gerry, however, said the final decision on funding allocation is made by the Board of Directors, and it is up to both the CEO and the CISO to get their buy-in on where and what security investments should be made.

“This is a key reason that the CISO should report to the CEO and have direct access to the Board of Directors,” said Gerry. “While oftentimes security can be viewed as a cost center, the new reality is that a robust security program should be a competitive differentiator and a revenue enabler, in addition to simply being the cost of doing business in an ever-expanding threat environment.”

The Future is AI

CISOs have long understood the role AI plays in cybersecurity, particularly handling some of the most mundane tasks that free up time for overworked security teams to handle issues that require hands-on management. As generative AI becomes ubiquitous in the workplace, CEOs have become increasingly aware of AI’s impact on business and security risks. Some companies are turning to adding Chief AI Officers to their IT and security teams, but even when they aren’t CEOs still recognize the need to include AI in future security budgets.

“As threats become more sophisticated, leveraging AI tools enables us to enhance our threat detection, automate responses and improve incident management,” said Darren Guccione, CEO at Keeper Security. “Skilled professionals are needed to navigate the rapidly evolving threat landscape and ensure that our AI-driven strategies remain effective and secure and must be a budget consideration.”

How it is defined within the cybersecurity budget will depend on how it is used. Will it be a fringe use of AI in commercial tools for productivity gains or an embedded use of AI in the organization’s core offerings?

“If it is the latter, the CEO must satisfy themselves that the organization has the right experience to manage the opportunities and risks,” Lindahl-Wise said. As for the security side of things, “My hunch is we will see AI responsibilities feature heavily in CIO/CTO roles before standalone CAIOs become the norm.”

AI might be the most current technology and security disrupter, but it won’t be the last. Where it is similar is that it creates risk, both to the business and to cybersecurity, and risk is where CEOs and CISOs will focus on investments as a team.

The post CISO vs. CEO: Making a case for cybersecurity investments appeared first on Security Intelligence.

As 2024 comes to an end, it’s time to look ahead to the state of public cybersecurity in 2025.

The good news is this: Cybersecurity will be an ongoing concern for the government regardless of the party in power, as many current cybersecurity initiatives are bipartisan. But what will government cybersecurity look like in 2025?

Will the country be better off than they are today? What are the positive signs that could signal a good year for national cybersecurity? And what threats should we be looking out for?

To get the answers to these pressing questions, we spoke with Jake Braun, former Principal Deputy National Cyber Director under President Biden and lecturer and senior advisor at Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.

The current state of cybersecurity

According to Braun, the current state of cybersecurity in the country is showing significant progress. Still, he says, it remains a work in progress.

Recent initiatives, such as the White House’s efforts to modernize security policies, are moving the needle forward. Braun notes that the push towards using memory-safe programming languages like Rust to replace older, vulnerable languages and initiatives for improving BGP security are signs that national-level cybersecurity is receiving strategic attention.

“The focus has shifted from addressing specific vulnerabilities to eliminating entire classes of threats by enhancing infrastructure fundamentals,” he said.

Another exciting development is the government’s approach to the cybersecurity skills gap, as they move away from requiring traditional four-year degrees for cybersecurity roles. Instead, there’s a push towards skill-based training, aiming to fill gaps in cybersecurity staffing quickly and effectively.

“We need to move past the outdated notion that every cybersecurity role requires a Ph.D. or even a four-year degree,” Braun said. “Many of these roles can be filled by individuals with hands-on experience and targeted skills training, which allows us to broaden the talent pool and address critical workforce shortages more effectively.”

While challenges like over-regulation and fragmented compliance requirements still exist, there is notable progress in streamlining these areas to free up resources for actual security improvements.

What will government cybersecurity look like in 2025?

Government cybersecurity is expected to evolve into a more cohesive and strategically aligned effort. There will likely be continued work on harmonizing cybersecurity regulations, which will reduce the bureaucratic overhead for corporations and government entities alike.

“By 2025, I expect we will see a much more unified approach to cybersecurity regulations,” he said. “It will significantly reduce the burden on corporations and allow them to focus on real security measures rather than compliance paperwork.”

Another key area of focus, while not directly cybersecurity-related at first glance, is improving the resilience of critical infrastructure. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have already laid the groundwork for enhancing cybersecurity in sectors like energy, transportation and telecommunications. These investments are expected to bring about significant improvements in the security posture of both public and private infrastructure — essentially ensuring that cybersecurity is built into the core of modernization efforts rather than being an afterthought.

One example Braun points to is modernizing the electrical grid and water systems, including enhanced cyber protections to prevent both physical and digital disruptions.

“Those three bills make up almost $2 trillion of investment in our infrastructure around the country,” he said. “And while cyber’s only called out explicitly in a few places, it’s kind of implicit in pretty much every single aspect of these bills. You can’t build a new wind farm and hook it up to the grid without there being cyber involved.”

Another effort that is expected to continue is the focus on public-private partnerships. While a distrust in information sharing still exists, the government recognizes that effective cybersecurity cannot be achieved in isolation. Increased collaboration with private sector companies will be critical for sharing threat intelligence, aligning security standards and responding swiftly to emerging threats.

Circling back to the skills gap issue, Braun expects there will be an increased emphasis on cybersecurity education and workforce development. Programs to re-skill workers, provide hands-on training, and promote diversity within the cybersecurity workforce will be expanded.

“While technology is inherently not secure because… just talk to any hacker at DefCon and they’ll tell you that you can hack pretty much anything… I do think that we’re being more strategic, and we’ve got more resources and more initiatives that are strategic and not just tactical going on now than we did before.”

What threats should we be aware of?

Despite the many reasons for optimism, potentially harmful threats are on the horizon. According to Braun, geopolitical tensions, particularly with Ukraine as well as China’s ambitions in Taiwan, pose significant cybersecurity challenges.

“These situations could dramatically influence the evolution of cyber threats and how we need to position ourselves defensively,” he said.

The outcome of these international developments will shape how cyber threats evolve and how the U.S. can position itself to defend against both state-sponsored and independent actors.

Braun suggests that The New Great Game over control of the internet — whether it will remain free and democratic or become fragmented and authoritarian — is another issue that governments around the world must pay attention to. The outcome can impact the future of digital freedom across the globe.

“China’s Belt and Road Initiative has put many smaller countries in a tough predicament, giving China leverage to push their authoritarian model of internet governance. This could lead to a fragmented global internet, which would have serious implications for cybersecurity and digital freedom.”

Facing cybersecurity in 2025 with proactive measures

Still, Braun is approaching 2025 with cautious optimism. He emphasized that while technology will always have inherent vulnerabilities, the strategic approach of the government — coupled with substantial investments — lays the foundation for the future of national cybersecurity to be more promising than it has been in previous years.

“The country will likely be better prepared due to the significant investments in infrastructure and security standards, as well as initiatives to enhance workforce capabilities,” he said. “The significant investments we’re making in infrastructure and cybersecurity standards are going to put us in a much better place. We’re seeing proactive measures, like bolstering cybersecurity in critical areas such as water utilities, which are crucial for both civilian and military stability.”

The post Government cybersecurity in 2025: Former Principal Deputy National Cyber Director weighs in appeared first on Security Intelligence.

The new year always kicks off with a flood of prediction articles; then, 12 months later, our newsfeed is filled with wrap-up articles. But we are often left to wonder if experts got it right in January about how the year would unfold. As we close out 2024, let’s take a moment to go back and see if the crystal balls were working about how the year would play out in cybersecurity.

Here are five trends that were often predicted for 2024.

1. The use of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity will increase

As the year began, there was no doubt that artificial intelligence (AI) would be a main character in the year’s events — and that was right on the money. Many organizations began to use or continue using AI in their cybersecurity operations in a wide range of ways. For example, Microsoft’s internal response teams use a large language model to manage requests and tickets based on how they were handled previously, saving 20 hours per person each week.

As the world turned its attention over the summer to the Paris Olympics, the team responsible for keeping the Paris Olympics data, apps, systems and even physical buildings protected turned to AI. While 140 cyberattacks were linked to the Olympics, the teams’ efforts resulted in no disruption of the competitions.

Throughout the entire life cycle of the games, from before the opening ceremony to after the torch left Paris, cybersecurity teams used AI to secure critical information systems, protect sensitive data and raise awareness within the games’ ecosystem. Additionally, algorithmic video surveillance based in AI scanned video to detect abandoned bags, the presence of weapons, unusual crowd movements and fires.

2. Organizations will see more AI-based threats and attacks

Unfortunately, experts were right about cyber criminals also turning to AI technology to more effectively conduct attacks. Threat actors are using AI in a wide range of ways for data breaches and cyberattacks, including improved reconnaissance, better target profiling and lowering expertise required for conducting an attack. Because AI can automate many processes required for an attack, such as vulnerability scanning, exploitation and data exfiltration processes, more cyber criminals now have the skills for even more damaging attacks.

“Since the release of gen AI, attackers are increasingly employing tools along with large language models to carry out large-scale social engineering attacks, and Gartner predicts that by 2027, 17% of total cyberattacks/data leaks will involve generative AI,” wrote Gartner in an August 2024 press release.

IBM distinguished engineer Jeff Crume has no doubt that the trend of cyber criminals using AI for attacks will continue in 2025. He says that cyber professionals do a better job of authentication because attackers are finding it easier to log in than to hack in. While looking for bad grammar and spelling errors now works to spot phishing attacks, he expects that this will no longer work as AI-based phishing attacks hit mass distribution.

3. An increase in deepfakes and deceptions

While experts correctly predicted that deepfakes would become more of a threat in 2024, it’s likely no one expected the scale of arguably the most shocking deepfake story of the year. At the beginning of 2024, attackers created a deepfake video call that led to an employee giving the cyber criminals $25 million, which showed the power and damage that deepfakes can cause. But the World Economic Forum expects that the trend will only increase, even declaring that over the next two years, AI-fueled disinformation will be the number one threat in the world.

Throughout the year, other deepfake incidents made headlines. Quantum AI, an AI company, was suspected by the Securities and Exchange Commission of using AI to generate deepfakes on social media to deceive the public that Elon Musk developed the company’s technology. Even the well-received Paris Olympics were not immune to deepfakes, with Russian Group Storm-1679 suspected of creating AI content to discredit the International Olympic Committee. As the year closed out, German citizens saw an increase in AI-based propaganda regarding the upcoming German elections in 2025, including text, images and video.

4. A growing impact of quantum computing on cybersecurity

Ray Harishankar, IBM Fellow, IBM Quantum Safe, predicted that in 2024, “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks would become more common. As the year moved forward, quantum computing became an increasingly top concern, especially the harvest-now attacks. In July, the Office of Management and Budget released the Report on Post-Quantum Cryptography, which urged organizations to prepare their systems and processes for advancements in quantum computing.

During the fall of 2024, the predictions of the quantum’s impact became even more urgent, as symmetric cryptography would be unsafe by 2029, with even asymmetric cryptography fully breakable by quantum technology by 2034.

“That does not mean, however, that the risks are five years away. The prospect of harvest-now, decrypt-later attacks is already a concern, making the post-quantum cryptography transition an urgent priority,” wrote Gartner.

 5. Recession of ransomware attacks

John Dwyer, former Head of Research at IBM X-Force, predicted we might face a ransomware recession as more companies pledged not to pay the ransom. While we wish we could declare this came true, the jury is still out, and likely, we won’t know for sure until all the data is collected from 2024.

However, Wired declared in the summer of 2024 that “ransomware showed no signs of slowing down in 2024 — despite increasing police crackdowns.” In December, Heather Wishart-Smith wrote in her Forbes article The Persistent Ransomware Threat: 2024 Trends and High-Profile Attacks about the increasing dual extortion technique of cyber criminals as an increasing trend in 2024.

All in all, the experts were largely on target with their 2024 predictions. And in the next few weeks, we will start the prediction game all over again as we wonder what’s in the cards for cybersecurity in 2025.

The post 2024 trends: Were they accurate? appeared first on Security Intelligence.

With 2025 on the horizon, it’s important to reflect on the developments and various setbacks that happened in cybersecurity this past year. While there have been many improvements in security technologies and growing awareness of emerging cybersecurity threats, 2024 was also a hard reminder that the ongoing fight against cyber criminals is far from over.

We’ve summarized this past year’s top five data breach stories and industry trends, with key takeaways from each that organizations should note going into the following year.

Billions of US citizens have private data exposed

On April 8, 2024, one of the largest personal data breaches took place, leading to nearly 3 billion US citizens having their information leaked on the dark web. Even more shocking was that all of this information came from only one source — National Public Data, a background check and fraud prevention service located in Coral Springs, Florida.

The stolen information collected contained names, social security numbers, home addresses and known relatives, and was listed on the dark web for sale for $3.5 million. Many of the victims were still unaware of the breach several months later, leading to several class action lawsuits filed by a dozen U.S. states. National Public Data has since then filed for bankruptcy.

Third-party breaches impact top 48 energy companies

A SecurityScorecard report revealed this year that 90% of the world’s top energy companies experienced data breaches that stemmed from third-party breaches. Many of these attacks were a direct result of increased reliance on cloud services and third-party integration to manage networked systems.

It was confirmed that out of the 264 individual breaches linked to third-party compromises, the MOVEit vulnerability was one of the major reasons for the issues. With critical infrastructure organizations playing a significant role in the health and well-being of citizens, these types of breaches continue to threaten public safety. The energy sector as a whole has since begun implementing stricter vendor assessments, continuous system and threat monitoring solutions and more secure data transfer protocols.

Financial firms face the highest data breach costs since the pandemic

According to the IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2024 report, the financial sector has seen a surge in data breach costs since the pandemic, reaching an average of $6.08 million per incident. While various attack types account for this increase, IT failures and simple human error account for a significant portion of the problem.

While certain improvements have been made in threat detection and containment timelines, many financial firms still have an uphill battle to climb. Larger-scale financial service breaches are now estimated to reach hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, leading many organizations to invest more in comprehensive identity and access management (IAM) solutions, AI-powered security solutions and dedicated incident response teams.

Average data breach cost increases 10% year-over-year

The global average cost of data breaches jumped 10% year-over-year between 2023 and 2024, with the latest figure reaching an alarming $4.88 million. The number represented by this average is driven by a number of factors, including lost business revenues, recovery costs and regulatory fines.

Complicating this ongoing trend, 40% of breaches recorded now involve data spread across multiple public and cloud environments and on-premises systems. These larger digital footprints average over $5 million in recovery costs with an average containment timeline of 283 days. Encouragingly, organizations that leverage AI-driven security workflows are experiencing a significantly lower average of $2.2 million per breach, pointing to a positive trend in next-generation security measures.

50% of data breaches tied to security staffing shortages

The cybersecurity skills gap widened over the last few years, with 50% of organizations experiencing data breaches reporting that they stemmed from staffing shortages. Skills shortages are specific to a wide range of critical areas, including cloud security and incident response, data analysis and compliance expertise. Another growing need for these impacted organizations is proficiency in security information and event management (SIEM) tools and active threat hunting.

In an ongoing effort to fill the key personnel gaps, it’s now recommended that organizations put a stronger focus on upskilling their existing workforce. Modern businesses can also leverage professional soft skills such as good communication and adaptability to help supplement and strengthen their security teams.

Moving into 2025

The past year has shown that while modern cybersecurity tools and solutions provide protection against a broader range of threats, very few industries and organizations are immune to cyber crime’s evolving nature.

As we move into 2025, enterprises should prioritize a proactive approach to cybersecurity planning. This includes optimizing their access restriction policies when operating with both in-house and remote teams, working to address any critical staffing shortages, and creating a stronger culture of security awareness within their organization.

The post 2024 roundup: Top data breach stories and industry trends appeared first on Security Intelligence.

For the last couple of years, a lot of attention has been placed on the evolutionary state of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and its impact on cybersecurity. In many industries, the risks associated with AI-generated attacks are still present and concerning, especially with the global average of data breach costs increasing by 10% from last year.

However, according to the most recent Cloud Threat Landscape Report released by IBM’s X-Force team, the near-term threat of an AI-generated attack targeting cloud computing environments is actually moderately low. Still, projections from X-Force reveal that an increase in these sophisticated attack methods could be on the horizon.

Current status of the cloud computing market

The cloud computing market continues to grow exponentially, with experts expecting its value to reach more than $675 billion by the end of 2024. As more organizations expand their operational capabilities beyond on-premise restrictions and leverage public and private cloud infrastructure and services, adoption of AI technology is steadily increasing across multiple industry sectors.

Generative AI’s rapid integration into cloud computing platforms has created many opportunities for businesses, especially when enabling better automation and efficiency in the deployment, provisioning and scalability of IT services and SaaS applications.

However, as more businesses rely on new disruptive technologies to help them maximize the value of their cloud investments, the potential security danger that generative AI poses is something closely monitored by various cybersecurity organizations.

Why are AI-generated attacks in the cloud currently considered lower risk?

Although AI-generated attacks are still among the top emerging risks for senior risk and assurance executives, according to a recent Gartner report, the current threat of AI technologies being exploited and leveraged in cloud infrastructure attacks is still moderately low, according to X-Force’s research.

This isn’t to say that AI technology isn’t still being regularly used in the development and distribution of highly sophisticated phishing schemes at scale. This behavior has already been observed with active malware distributors like Hive0137, who make use of large language models (LLMs) when scripting new dark web tools. Rather, the current lower risk projections are relevant to the likelihood of AI platforms being directly targeted in both cloud and on-premise environments.

One of the primary reasons for this lower risk has to do with the complex undertaking it will take for cyber criminals to breach and manipulate the underlying infrastructure of AI deployments successfully. Even if attackers put considerable resources into this effort, the still relatively low market saturation of cloud-based AI tools and solutions would likely lead to a low return on investment in time, resources and risks associated with carrying out these attacks.

Preparing for an inevitable increase in AI-driven cloud threats

While the immediate risks of AI-driven cloud threats may be lower today, this isn’t to say that organizations shouldn’t prepare for this to change in the near future.

IBM’s X-Force team has recognized correlations between the percentage of market share new technologies have across various markets and the trigger points related to their associated cybersecurity risks. According to the recent X-Force analysis, once generative AI matures and approaches 50% market saturation, it’s likely that its attack surface will become a larger target for cyber criminals.

For organizations currently utilizing AI technologies and proceeding with cloud adoption, designing more secure AI strategies is essential. This includes developing stronger identity security postures, integrating security throughout their cloud development processes and safeguarding the integrity of their data and quantum computation models.

The post Cloud Threat Landscape Report: AI-generated attacks low for the cloud appeared first on Security Intelligence.

With generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) on the frontlines of information security, red teams play an essential role in identifying vulnerabilities that others can overlook.

With the average cost of a data breach reaching an all-time high of $4.88 million in 2024, businesses need to know exactly where their vulnerabilities lie. Given the remarkable pace at which they’re adopting gen AI, there’s a good chance that some of those vulnerabilities lie in AI models themselves — or the data used to train them.

That’s where AI-specific red teaming comes in. It’s a way to test the resilience of AI systems against dynamic threat scenarios. This involves simulating real-world attack scenarios to stress-test AI systems before and after they’re deployed in a production environment. Red teaming has become vitally important in ensuring that organizations can enjoy the benefits of gen AI without adding risk.

IBM’s X-Force Red Offensive Security service follows an iterative process with continuous testing to address vulnerabilities across four key areas:

1. Model safety and security testing
2. Gen AI application testing
3. AI platform security testing
4. MLSecOps pipeline security testing

In this article, we’ll focus on three types of adversarial attacks that target AI models and training data.

Prompt injection

Most mainstream gen AI models have safeguards built in to mitigate the risk of them producing harmful content. For example, under normal circumstances, you can’t ask ChatGPT or Copilot to write malicious code. However, methods such as prompt injection attacks and jailbreaking can make it possible to work around these safeguards.

One of the goals of AI red teaming is to deliberately make AI “misbehave” — just as attackers do. Jailbreaking is one such method that involves creative prompting to get a model to subvert its safety filters. However, while jailbreaking can theoretically help a user carry out an actual crime, most malicious actors use other attack vectors — simply because they’re far more effective.

Prompt injection attacks are much more severe. Rather than targeting the models themselves, they target the entire software supply chain by obfuscating malicious instructions in prompts that otherwise appear harmless. For instance, an attacker might use prompt injection to get an AI model to reveal sensitive information like an API key, potentially giving them back-door access to any other systems that are connected to it.

Red teams can also simulate evasion attacks, a type of adversarial attack whereby an attacker subtly modifies inputs to trick a model into classifying or misinterpreting an instruction. These modifications are usually imperceptible to humans. However, they can still manipulate an AI model into taking an undesired action. For example, this might include changing a single pixel in an input image to fool the classifier of a computer vision model, such as one intended for use in a self-driving vehicle.

Data poisoning

Attackers also target AI models during training and development, hence it’s essential that red teams simulate the same attacks to identify risks that could compromise the whole project. A data poisoning attack happens when an adversary introduces malicious data into the training set, thereby corrupting the learning process and embedding vulnerabilities into the model itself. The result is that the entire model becomes a potential entry point for further attacks. If training data is compromised, it’s usually necessary to retrain the model from scratch. That’s a highly resource-intensive and time-consuming operation.

Red team involvement is vital from the very beginning of the AI model development process to mitigate the risk of data poisoning. Red teams simulate real-world data poisoning attacks in a secure sandbox environment air-gapped from existing production systems. Doing so provides insights into how vulnerable the model is to data poisoning and how real threat actors might infiltrate or compromise the training process.

AI red teams can proactively identify weaknesses in data collection pipelines, too. Large language models (LLMs) often draw data from a huge number of different sources. ChatGPT, for example, was trained on a vast corpus of text data from millions of websites, books and other sources. When building a proprietary LLM, it’s crucial that organizations know exactly where they’re getting their training data from and how it’s vetted for quality. While that’s more of a job for security auditors and process reviewers, red teams can use penetration testing to assess a model’s ability to resist flaws in its data collection pipeline.

Model inversion

Proprietary AI models are usually trained, at least partially, on the organization’s own data. For instance, an LLM deployed in customer service might use the company’s customer data for training so that it can provide the most relevant outputs. Ideally, models should only be trained based on anonymized data that everyone is allowed to see. Even then, however, privacy breaches may still be a risk due to model inversion attacks and membership inference attacks.

Even after deployment, gen AI models can retain traces of the data that they were trained on. For instance, the team at Google’s DeepMind AI research laboratory successfully managed to trick ChatGPT into leaking training data using a simple prompt. Model inversion attacks can, therefore, allow malicious actors to reconstruct training data, potentially revealing confidential information in the process.

Membership inference attacks work in a similar way. In this case, an adversary tries to predict whether a particular data point was used to train the model through inference with the help of another model. This is a more sophisticated method in which an attacker first trains a separate model – known as a membership inference model — based on the output of the model they’re attacking.

For example, let’s say a model has been trained on customer purchase histories to provide personalized product recommendations. An attacker may then create a membership inference model and compare its outputs with those of the target model to infer potentially sensitive information that they might use in a targeted attack.

In either case, red teams can evaluate AI models for their ability to inadvertently leak sensitive information directly or indirectly through inference. This can help identify vulnerabilities in training data workflows themselves, such as data that hasn’t been sufficiently anonymized in accordance with the organization’s privacy policies.

Building trust in AI

Building trust in AI requires a proactive strategy, and AI red teaming plays a fundamental role. By using methods like adversarial training and simulated model inversion attacks, red teams can identify vulnerabilities that other security analysts are likely to miss.

These findings can then help AI developers prioritize and implement proactive safeguards to prevent real threat actors from exploiting the very same vulnerabilities. For businesses, the result is reduced security risk and increased trust in AI models, which are fast becoming deeply ingrained across many business-critical systems.

The post Testing the limits of generative AI: How red teaming exposes vulnerabilities in AI models appeared first on Security Intelligence.

December is a month of numbers, from holiday countdowns to RSVPs for parties. But for business leaders, the most important numbers this month are the budget numbers for 2025. With cybersecurity a top focus for many businesses in 2025, it is likely to be a top-line item on many budgets heading into the New Year.

Gartner expects that cybersecurity spending is expected to increase 15% in 2025, from $183.9 billion to $212 billion. Security services lead the way for the segment expecting the most spending growth, with security software coming in second and network security as the third area of growth.

“The continued heightened threat environment, cloud movement and talent crunch are pushing security to the top of the priorities list and pressing chief information security officers (CISOs) to increase their organization’s security spend,” said Shailendra Upadhyay, Senior Research Principal at Gartner in a recent press release. “Furthermore, organizations are currently assessing their endpoint protection platform (EPP) and endpoint detection and response (EDR) needs and making adjustments to boost their operational resilience and incident response following the CrowdStrike outage.”

Factors contributing to the increase in spending

While spending decisions and increases are likely due to many different reasons, Gartner points to two main reasons for the predicted increase.

• Generative AI: Garter said that because of organizations using Generative AI, they will need to take additional steps to secure their environment. The IBM Framework for Securing Generative AI lays out five steps: Securing the data, securing the model, securing the usage, securing AI model infrastructure and establishing sound AI governance. Many organizations will need to purchase additional software, such as application security, data security and privacy and infrastructure protection, due to the increased use of generative AI.
• The global skills shortage: Many organizations are facing a skills shortage where they do not have the in-house talent to manage their cybersecurity needs. As a solution, many are hiring help to reduce their risks, such as security consulting services, security professional services and managed security services. Gartner points to the costs of these services as a driving factor in high predicted spending, making services a high-growth area of cybersecurity.

Creating your cybersecurity budget

Instead of simply making a single line item on your organization’s budget that encompasses cybersecurity, accurate budgeting starts with breaking out all of the components of an effective cybersecurity program.

Consider the following in your budget:

• Labor costs: Besides salaries for all full-time employees, consider any additional services you need to purchase. For example, outsourcing penetration testing falls into this line item. Additionally, consider if you need to hire managed services for any portion of your cybersecurity.
• Technology: Think about all types of software needed, which includes antivirus, encryption tools and firewalls. Consider if you will be using generative AI for cybersecurity as well as additional tools needed to protect the organization from attacks on generative AI tools used for daily business tasks. Be sure to also include hardware costs, such as any infrastructure upgrades needed to run any new technological tools, especially generative AI.
• Training: Many organizations only consider the budget for training and certifications for their cybersecurity staff. However, be sure to allocate funds for cybersecurity training for the entire organization. By thinking outside the box and setting aside sufficient funds, you can make a big impact in reducing cyberattacks caused by employee errors.
• Incident Response: After a breach or attack happens, organizations need funds to contain the breach and manage the response. Costs that often occur include legal fees, PR firms, overtime, data breach notification, identity theft protection and loss of revenue.

Budget can affect employee stress

While many organizations consider business disruption and potential risk when creating their cybersecurity budget, many overlook how the budget impacts the cybersecurity team.

The ISACA State of Cybersecurity 2024 and Beyond found that 66% of cybersecurity professionals stated their role is more stressful. Not surprisingly, the top reason (81%) stated was that the threat landscape is increasingly complex. However, the budget being too low (45%) tied for second with worsened hiring retention challenges and staff not being skilled/trained.

The report found that more than half (51%) felt that their budgets were underfunded, an increase from 47% sharing that sentiment in 2023. Additionally, only 37% expect that their budgets will increase in 2025. Adding to the stress, only 40% had a high confidence that their team was prepared to handle a cyberattack. While at the same time, 47% expect a cyberattack on their organizations.

Reducing employee stress while budgeting for 2025

As business leaders are working on budgets, here are some ways to reduce employee stress related to the 2025 budget.

• Include your hands-on cybersecurity team members in the budget discussions. When employees feel that their perspectives and ideas are heard, they are less likely to be resentful. Additionally, they can see first-hand the tradeoffs involved in budgeting as well as the impact of each decision on other line items. 
• Ask employees to share their current challenges. By starting with understanding their problems, you can then use these issues to drive the budget decisions. If team members jump to the technology solutions, steer them back to first discussing the problems.
• Have your cybersecurity team research and get estimates. Once you move to the solution portion of budgeting, ask cybersecurity team members to research tools and get estimates. Since they will be the ones using the tools on a daily basis, getting their buy-in on specific solutions can help increase satisfaction as well as improve the accuracy of the budget.
• Show team members the draft budget. Budgeting often means making hard decisions. By showing the team the draft budget and asking for their input, they feel heard and also can see the tradeoffs that are necessary as part of the budgeting process.

While the increase in cybersecurity spending is a positive trend overall, the most important thing is how companies use their higher investments. By making the right choices for your specific organization, you can reduce risk while also improving employee satisfaction.

The post Making smart cybersecurity spending decisions in 2025 appeared first on Security Intelligence.